mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 2-18

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

..

Initially, Chopin marked the two-quaver motifs with an accent and a slur – as he did in b. 1 – also in b. 2-6, 11-16 and 18. All those markings were then crossed out – after the three accent/slur combinations in b. 1, Chopin left only one more at the end of b. 22, which, actually, gave it a special meaning.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A

b. 3-4

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in A (possible interpretation→FC)

  in FE (→EE)

  in GE

No markings in CGS
..

As was the case with b. 1-2, we consider the top arm of the  hairpin in A to be reliable. In all the remaining sources (except for CGS, in which the marks were overlooked), it was the range of the bottom arm that was taken into account. In the editions, both marks were extended or moved, most probably after their own, general editorial principles.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 8

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A (→FE→EE)

No markings in FC (→GE) & CGS
..

The lack of   hairpins in FC (→GE) is most probably an oversight by the copyist.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors of FC

b. 9-10

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

  in A (→FC→GE)

  in FE

  in EE

No markings in CGS
..

Just like in the similar situations in b. 1, 3 and 5, we consider the top arm of the  mark in A to be more reliable, although in this case the difference in length is insignificant. We regard the minor inaccuracies in the reproduction of the   hairpins in FC and GE as similarly insignificant. The marks in FE, and to an even greater extent in EE, were adjusted to the main beats of the bars (routine revision, like in analogous places).  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: FE revisions

b. 11

composition: Op. 28 No. 6, Prelude in B minor

in A (→FE→EE)

 in FC

No sign in GE & CGS
..

The  hairpin was reproduced inaccurately both in FC and FE (→EE); however, we consider that the change of the mark's range in FE has no impact on its meaning. The omission of the hairpin in GE and CGS must be oversights. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in FC